*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[benchmark00]

I said agree to disagree, because frankly I disagree. Trott's shot was lose, it wasn't a bad ball by any means, bit of shape into the right Haider, hitting top of off. But its a dismissal Trott won't be happy with, and a ball he'd back himself to deal with 99 times out of 100. Comparing it to Gatting is ludicrous.
Just look at the gate Trott leaves, it was a poorly executed and loose drive

Marcuss, you do realise that not everyone drives with their bat connected to their pad? It's not a sign of a poor technique neccessarily. It was a good ball, give credit where it's due ffs.

 

[Spark]

Yeah if we're going to make a list of players who leave gates then you're going to have a lot of very good players in there.

 

[Jarquis]

You said Haddin and Hussey pulled their innings out of their arse, which clearly implies luck. You also then tried to say that take away their scores and Australia batted poorly so we were lucky, absolutely ridiculous.

I posted what I did in reply to someone saying that England were easily the better team in the game (or words to that effect).

It's true that England should be the happiest at the result, but that's because they were ****ed for most of the match.

Australia proved they could bowl out England cheaply, England, although I have no doubt they probably they can they haven't actually proved it yet. So proven performance > potential performance.

Couple this with the fact that England won the toss and elected to bat, I'd say Australia would've been more than happy with their early match work, despite it going poorer in the second bowling innings.

The fact that you refuse to give credit to Haddin for his innings, and acknowledge that he's a good bat shows you're bias. You're just saying he was lucky.

Pulling it out of your arse does not imply luck at all. It means to pull it out at a time where its most needed. So I'd appreciate it if.you diet quote me as saying something different to what I actually said.
I didn't try and take away your scores, I said without the scores our innings were very similar, and then reminded you of the fact Hussey was actually out so your innings could've been very different.

I'm not disputing the toss or anything like that. I just think you were overly critical of our bowlers considering that the only difference between our effort and yours could've been one decision.

As for crediting Haddin's knock, I've said several times it is the best of his career and praised it hugely as he was playing it. So pull the other one.

 

[Ausage]

How's it biased
Check the scorecard, your innings reflected ours almost exactly with the exception of the huge partnership.
A partnership which never would have developed had Hussey been correctly given.
Ergo what I said in that post was correct... no?

Yeah but if Mitch came in earlier in different light and conditions and faced the same average bowling Hussey and Haddin faced for most of the day he may have gotten a hundred. That hundred would have given him the confidence he needed to bowl like a demon in your second innings, nabbing him a 6-fer and skittling you for 200 odd and giving us an innings victory. Johnson is retained for the rest of the series, and we romp to the 5-0 drubbing we deserve.

Seriously these kinds of discussions are pointless, we could look at the ifs, buts and whyfores all day. **** umpiring happens, and there's no point in overanalysing it when it does.

 

[Jarquis]

Marcuss, you do realise that not everyone drives with their bat connected to their pad? It's not a sign of a poor technique neccessarily. It was a good ball, give credit where it's due ffs.

Meh, was a good ball not a special one and it was a loose shot not a horrific one. My initial reaction was "ooh bad shot" and I still stand by it.

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah but if Mitch came in earlier in different light and conditions and faced the same average bowling Hussey and Haddin faced for most of the day he may have gotten a hundred. That hundred would have given him the confidence he needed to bowl like a demon in your second innings, nabbing him a 6-fer and skittling you for 200 odd and giving us an innings victory. Johnson is retained for the rest of the series, and we romp to the 5-0 drubbing we deserve.

Seriously these kinds of discussions are pointless, we could look at the ifs, buts and whyfores all day. **** umpiring happens, and there's no point in overanalysing it when it does.

did you actually watch any of the bowling that morning? Because Anderson was much, much more than "average"

 

[Ausage]

did you actually watch any of the bowling that morning? Because Anderson was much, much more than "average"

Not my point and you know it.

 

[benchmark00]

Such consistently flawed posting has to be admired tbf.

 

[Jarquis]

"Johnson would've come out and faced the same average bowling" no - he would've walked out and faced Jimmy in the middle of a hot spell, and considering Mitch has barely laid bat on ball in Tests for ages... I know where my money would've been.
Meh, all I know is when Mitch did face the average bowling he got a 19(?) Ball duck and we skittled your tail 5/31.

 

[Spark]

I wouldn't read too much into that last spell. Tailenders on slog mode =/= tailenders on survival mode.

 

[Jarquis]

Such consistently flawed posting has to be admired tbf.

How about trying to pick out some flaws rather than passively allude to them and then misquote me when you fo reply.

 

[benchmark00]

"Johnson would've come out and faced the same average bowling" no - he would've walked out and faced Jimmy in the middle of a hot spell, and considering Mitch has barely laid bat on ball in Tests for ages... I know where my money would've been.
Meh, all I know is when Mitch did face the average bowling he got a 19(?) Ball duck and we skittled your tail 5/31.

Johnson had scored a century in a shield match the week before. I'm not saying that's the same as a test match, but it's not exactly poor form is it?

 

[Ausage]

"Johnson would've come out and faced the same average bowling" no - he would've walked out and faced Jimmy in the middle of a hot spell, and considering Mitch has barely laid bat on ball in Tests for ages... I know where my money would've been.
Meh, all I know is when Mitch did face the average bowling he got a 19(?) Ball duck and we skittled your tail 5/31.

Yeah ok. That's one hypothesis.

The point is you don't know what the hell would have happened. That's why the argument is completely and utterly pointless.

 

[Jarquis]

I wouldn't read too much into that last spell. Tailenders on slog mode =/= tailenders on survival mode.

Yeah, Johnson was swinging from the hip

 

[Jarquis]

Johnson had scored a century in a shield match the week before. I'm not saying that's the same as a test match, but it's not exactly poor form is it?

He took a 5fer as well, look where form got him there...
The century aside he's barely been able to buy a run in Tests for some time

 

[benchmark00]

How about trying to pick out some flaws rather than passively allude to them and then misquote me when you fo reply.

Well I don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but 'pulling it out of your ass' means not knowing what you're going on about.. in this case batting. How you think this means anything but lucky is beyond me.

Secondly , your whole argument is based upon 'what if'. If my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle, but that's not the case is it?

Thirdly, your consistent refusal to give credit to anything Australia did in this test shows you're posting along parochial lines.

 

[Ruckus]

The idea that umpiring decisions "even themselves out" is a complete fallacy

Over one match probably not. Over many matches bad decisions will even out. If assuming umpires don't have any bias (which I would like to think is true), a bad umpiring decision is a completely random event. Therefore complaining about one instance where a umpiring decision has gone against your team is about as equivalent as complaining that a captain 'unfairly' lost a coin toss.

 

[Spark]

Yeah, Johnson was swinging from the hip

And so Doherty, Hussey and Siddle got out to pearler balls that squared them up?

Hmm....

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah ok. That's one hypothesis.

The point is you don't know what the hell would have happened. That's why the argument is completely and utterly pointless.

Yeah, even so it doesn't really address my initial point that its unfair to be critical of the English attack considering that had one decision been gotten right we could've conceivably seen an innings that mirrored Australia's bowling effort.
As I said, people would much rather just point to the 300 and nothing else, when in reality there was more too it.

 

[Spark]

I think it's fair to criticise the way the English bowled after the first hour of the day. You got a bad decision, yeah, but the bowling became pretty pedestrian after that.